Latest Cases

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that that European Union law, in particular art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, should be interpreted as meaning that the instruments adopted in the context of the European Competition Network (ECN), in particular the ECN Model Leniency Programme, were not binding on national competition authorities. 

Prison – Prison conditions. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Parole Board's decision not to recommend his move to an open prison. Despite the fact that facilities necessary for enabling the claimant to carry out the required additional work had not been provided, there had not been any irrationality or other error of law in the Parole Board's decision. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge's refusal to adduce evidence of the complainant's previous convictions, pursuant to s 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, had not rendered unsafe the defendant's conviction for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The previous convictions did not have substantial probative value in relation to the real issue in the case. 

Insurance – Transfer of long-term insurance business. The Companies Court approved a insurance business transfer scheme for the transfer by Rothesay Assurance Ltd (RAL) of the whole of its long-term insurance business to another company in the same group, Rothesay Life Ltd (Rothesay Life). It held that, on the evidence, the capital position of Rothesay Life would remain strong after the transfer. There was no realistic prospect of risks to the position of the transferring RAL policyholders. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed an application by the claimants to admit expert evidence estimation of their potential career earnings in the construction industry. Having considered CPR PD 35 and its guidance on instructing experts the court accepted the defendants' submissions that the methodology proposed was merely research and further that it could not be said that what was proposed would assist the court in determining the matters which were in issue. 

European Union – Trade Marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Laboratorios Ern SA (Laboratorios) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios and michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics regarding the application by the latter company for registration of word mark 'Lenah. C' as a Community trade mark. 

Capital gains tax – Assessment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment under s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the same reasons that his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had previously been dismissed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed a father's application to discharge the care orders that had been made following a fact-finding hearing into the causes of injuries to one of his children (P) before her death in his care. The judge reviewed the medical/pathology evidence in light of testimony from new expert witnesses and maintained his earlier conclusion that the father had perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an appeal by a local authority against a decision by a trial judge refusing to authorise a patient's deprivation of liberty in his home pursuant to s 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Court found that the judge had, in her zeal to have the patient accommodated more suitably, failed to apply the best interests test by which all substantive decisions of the court were governed. Had she applied that test she could have granted the authorisation. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, in a decision in relation to the capacity of a young adult Z, on the autistic spectrum with a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, found that the evidence before the court by a margin was that Z was able to 'use or weigh' information as required by s 3(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about risk to herself, and her ability to keep herself safe in independent living, and in her social contacts.